advertisement


Do Quad ESL57 still stand up against modern speakers?

S

Simonms

Registered user
Hi,

After building my own set up over the last year or so (Well Tempered,Pass Labs (pre/power) into Obelisks I have helped my Dad build a similar system after he liked mine. Now my Sister has requested my help but the budget is not as large so have been wondering about Quad ESL57's (possibly stacked) as she has a large listening space and spotted RHCD's thread which started me ticking over about a project. After waiting a while to listen to a pair today I heard them with Ear 509 Mk2 amps and really liked the sound they made but was unsure of their condition and have not heard a stacked pair so wondered if anyone could comment on the ESL 57's and give an idea if they are still respected in the realms of today's offerings.
I am slowly listening to more and more hifi but am sure many of you are in a better position to comment.
I am a good carpenter so building a stacked pair potentially appeals if I could find some good examples (or even send them to OT for some TLC).

She mostly listens to acoustic music with the odd bit of classical.

Thanks in advance Si.
 
More 'beat the crap out of' than 'stand up against' IMO. I have heard very, very few speakers at any price that are as good and I could very happily live with a pair. I'd actually buy a pair right now if I could be absolutely certain they were perfectly matched / balanced etc and had a long service life ahead without the need for expensive servicing. I've wanted to own ESL57s since I was about 15 years old!

Tony.
 
They are very much still respected.

Pro
- Zero "overhang"
- No box colouration
- "transparent" sound - very clear
- Image wonderfully (but see cons also)
- Best mid-range on planet earth? Maybe.

Con
- Frequency range a little limited, more like a stand mount than something that big. HF not a big issue as your ears, recordings and especially vinyl won't get up that far anyway. LF, 40 Hz.
- Very directional. If you want the perfect listening experience it is best to be one person, or sit in a line behind each other.
- Often people haven't heard a good pair and servicing is likely to cost a few hundred quid
- Don't got very loud (stacking deals with this)
- Impedance and amp matching can be an issue, but most well designed modern amps should be fine. (stacking deals with some of this)
- Need some space behind them, but not as much as often suggested.

Depending on what you like about them, another option would be 63s. Less directional. More frequency range. Not much more expensive. Point source/delay line.

Some people would suggest the 63s sound worse than the 57s. I would suggest that you just get a bit more in the 63s and hence the really clear mid-range subjectively sounds worse in the 63s because you get more, not that you get less. If that makes sense.

I have 57s and 989s. Wouldn't dream of using anything else.

EDIT: Tony - you should pop when the snow goes away
 
I have stacked ESL57s. If you can live with the size of them , then for acoustic music they murder any box speaker I've heard. If you are near Leeds, come for a listen.
 
if the 57s were made with modern components and manufacturing they would be the no 1 speaker, why... boxes resonant and have cone mass, slow slow slow high distortion too
 
The 57 need good valve amplifiers, not sure many transistor design would work (303, A21 etc.. will offcourse)

Heard them at their best with Futtermann stuff, astounding !
 
Thanks Tony, as I said I liked them but am aware that the Ear amps are very good also and that as you mentioned a matching pair seem rare (followed a few pairs on ebay over the last month with some pairs having serial no's that differ by a long way). I like to be as safe as possible with my purchases so would send them to One Thing for a check out after buying as safely as poss.
They seem to go for £500ish and upwards, any ideas as to making a safe purchase?

Si
 
Oh - and the other criticism is that they "don't do bass" - they make the sound of the note but as the air moving is over a large area rather than a small cone, they don't make your diaphragm vibrate.
 
it seems that they are not that popular on here though as mine never sold and I doubt if there's a better pair anywhere after a full OTA rebuild.
 
I think there is far too much Rose-tinted thinking about old gear. I found the 57s were excellent only a very limited range of music - well recorded small ensembles and solo vocals. anything bigger just sounded sludgy. They have very limited dynamics - they cannot do big orchestral at all. Don't believe the hype and try before you buy. Wish I had.
 
alanbeeb said:
I think there is far too much Rose-tinted thinking about old gear. I found the 57s were excellent only a very limited range of music - well recorded small ensembles and solo vocals. anything bigger just sounded sludgy. They have very limited dynamics - they cannot do big orchestral at all. Don't believe the hype and try before you buy. Wish I had.
Click to expand...

There is a reason why I have 989s plugged in more often than 57s. Bass extension. Stacked 57s helps with "dynamics" just by shifting more air. Hence also the suggestion of listening to some 63s.

But for "mostly listens to acoustic music with the odd bit of classical" 57s could be ideal.

exotic_cover2.jpg


The above on 1/4" tape copied from the master tape played through 989s is the most convincing orchestral sound I've ever heard. OK, I'm cheating with the source. Just get bigger ESLs if you want an orchestra in the house.
 
PFM20532- Yes I heard them as I said with Ear 509 mk2's and liked the sound alot. What do you recommend using with them?

Steve-Cheers but am in Brighton but I am certainly interested in stacked Quads. My Sis has a large space so they would fit!

Jonathan-I read about the bass prob bur I did'nt notice it too much although it would be my only quibble...everything else seemed to overwhelm it. I felt very involved in the listen. Does stacking them improve the bass to noticable degree?

Alan-thanks but I did listen to some Classical (my own record with some complicated areas) and I found the opposite which was that sound stage was there and clear separation of instruments was pronounced hence my sense of involvement.

As I said my Sis is into acoustic stuff-really enjoying Joanna Newsome at the mo and I could imagine these speakers working nicely with this.

Si
 
Stacking helps with loudness and "dynamics", but still won't get you into the bottom octave on an organ. It gives you a bigger 57 - moves more air.
 
canonman said:
it seems that they are not that popular on here though as mine never sold and I doubt if there's a better pair anywhere after a full OTA rebuild.
Click to expand...

If they are still available Feb/March time I may be interested after all the positive feed back and hopefully finding another befitting pair. Would you mind letting me know your best price?:)

Thanks Si.
 
As Tony remarked, it's not a case of standing up to modern speakers, they blow pretty much everything else away. People are put off by the obvious things, size, shape, age, reputation as a difficult load. I wouldn't use anything else. They aren't at their best with big loud congested full-on heavy rock, they'd be the wrong choice for that. For acoustic / chamber / classical they are near unbeatable. And stacked they're gob-smacking, truly astonishing.

I'm a bit more accessible, in West London, if you want to hear them stacked.

I really must update that blog.
 
RHCD said:
I'm a bit more accessible, in West London, if you want to hear stacked Quads. It's pretty jaw-dropping.

I really must update that blog.
Click to expand...

Your blog was what got me into the idea as I am confident in designing and building some armatures for them-I have in mind a sort of big artists easel.
So you got them going! Has your Daughter reclaimed her own project space now?:)
What amps are you running them with?

Cheers Si....have broke foot at the mo but may well be up for a trip to London if you could spare an hour in the New Year...Thanks!
 
Jonathan Ribee said:
Some people would suggest the 63s sound worse than the 57s. I would suggest that you just get a bit more in the 63s and hence the really clear mid-range subjectively sounds worse in the 63s because you get more, not that you get less. If that makes sense.

I have 57s and 989s. Wouldn't dream of using anything else.

EDIT: Tony - you should pop when the snow goes away
Click to expand...
Jonathan, given your comparisons between 57s and 63s, could you expand on the 989s in comparison to the others?
 
Simonms said:
Could you possibly get that bottom octave from a seperate bass bin?
Click to expand...

Yes - but with the usual issues of sub integration and cross-over from a very different 'speaker. There are a couple of subs specifically aimed at 63/988 (Gradient comes to mind) but over the years ones specifically aimed at 57s have vanished - Gradient did a 57s one.

If it was really bothering you I'd suggest a 63 or 989 as an alternative.

Some people do prefer a 63+sub to a 989. Like all these things it depends what precisely is the thing you like about the ESL.

EDIT: You can get purpose built ESL/Sub 'speakers. Martin Logan being the most obvious. In this case they have been designed from scratch to be an ESL/sub combination. Some people really like them. But they do tend to be quite compact still - and I'd argue that if you were really going to go for this as a solution you might want a bigger sub than ML use - hence the popularity of the gradient subs. For which you do need a separate amp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top